Advice (grain of salt here) from a journalistic perspective:

1. Less pictures. They distract from your point, adding little-to-nothing (for me, personally, nothing). If you want to keep some "personality," one pic akin to the hedgehog suffices.
2. Less links. Links should show data, and be relevant to not just the specific point but the overall message. I.e. your link to the goat race needlessly takes your reader away from the page. Time is the fundamental currency of life, and they might not invest as much if you constantly redirect them. Also, for purposeful links, use Wiki-esque formatting: number, then actual link in footnote.
3. Less words. We see your earnestness and tone throughout the post--your writing style very clearly reflects you, which is great! Now the challenge: take out the fluff while still keeping yourself in there.

Essentially: less, less, less. "If I had more time, I would write less."

All that said, I am excited to see where this project goes. I will donate when I have the funds. Thanks for sharing. :)

Wrote Something Story-like

Living in Weirdtopia: Week One

I think there is another reason SJWs (and others) may dislike “rationality” that is getting buried here:

1. The author is not a good reasoner, and while arguing over these experiences, often says stupid things, and gets told ze is irrational

There is a difference between an argument not being phrased in a reasonable way and the argument itself being stupid. When my husband and I were first married I would win must of the arguments NOT because I was necessarily right (as later came to realize) but because I was a better rhetorician. I could lay out my case in an orderly fashion. I could work commonly agreed statements into my arguments. I could anticipate counter arguments and set-up to counter them. I could model possible external circumstances and present those that supported my view. This lead to a situation where my husband constantly felt steam rolled. He might not be able to articulate logical fallacies but he could feel the effects of his preferences constantly being overruled by mine. I needed to learn to back off and respect his views even if they weren’t phrased as elegantly as mine. Even though I could use a rationality is winning approach to maneuver the situation so that “we spend all the entertainment money on sci-fi books and none on cable” looked like the “rational” decision, I eventually came to realize that, to serve my overarching goal of a flourishing marriage, our hedonic preferences needed to be weighted equally and split the money between our preferences “I really, really want X,” is never stupid or irrational in and of itself. It’s just a preference. To the extent that some SJWs seem to want to say “I really, really want X,” and leave their argument at that, then rationality is irrelevant to them.

Can you explain how a simulated universe, for instance, is more useful than deism? Doesn't it also simply move the question of ultimate origins back a step?

Yeah. Okay. Is there any consensus about what caused the big bang? Like, how it happened?

It seems to me abiogenesis is super tricky but conceivable. The "beginning" of everything is a bit more conceptually problematic.

Positing a hyper-powerful creative entity seems not that epistemologically reckless when the more "scientific" alternative is "something happened".

“It is a mistake,” he said, “to suppose that the public wants the environment protected or their lives saved and that they will be grateful to any idealist who will fight for such ends. What the public wants is their own individual comfort.” ― Isaac Asimov, The Gods Themselves, page 31

If from Paleolithic to the height of Roman Empire, then trends would be exactly opposite, a march from freedom to slavery.

Um... You believe that between Paleolithic and the height of Roman Empire the progress went in reverse?

Unfortunately I cannot communicate why I think Christianity is true; it's a gestalt thing - it just makes sense, it can't be any other way in the light of all the evidence.

-- Any number of quite successful CEOs, neurosurgeons, writers.

What's the best way to make my body more flexible?

Thought about posting this in the research help thread but it's a little more robust of a challenge for us than I reckon can be pinned on the kind few but extremely intelligent souls that man that thread. You may have heard the intravenous fluids aren't used in African hospitals. Conventional wisdom pinned this on poor resourcing. An RCT was stopped early which found African children actually have a much higher septic shock mortality when given the fluid bolus (IV). We still use that drip in the West. The obvious question is, how good was the initial analyses indicating the Western data to IV fluid. One author of the African study raised that quesetion but didn't seem keen to do it herself. Can you help me dig up the original data, or perhaps the 'original' paper on whatever the guidelines are based off. Some easy lives can be saved with a bit of statistical analyses here I reckon and the LW hivemind can get this done!

Get up to speed:

The issue - WHO guidelines for IV bolus for septic shock haven't been updated 2 years since the release of a paper leaving it beyond doubt that children will die more with IV treatment. There's shitty evidence for the guidelines and we don't know (ok, there's the regular reasons like this why the relevant guidelines aren't evidence based yet given how easy it is to get an infectious disease in Africa...

The cost - estimated at 100,000 lives over 2 years by the studies authors one of whom recently appeared on Australian radio

what is fluid bolus therapy? here's a neatest summary